Fixing Tax Loopholes, 51% of Americans Pay NO Incomes Taxes

[saveliberty]

CON$ are the most misinformed ignorant boobs on the planet! GOP hate radio tells them crap and they mindlessly parrot it on these public messageboards. We have over 50 trillion in total wealth!!!

Your chart is over a year old and an ESTIMATE. I think the point that the nation and particularly the govenrment are in way too much debt. The public has recognized that and personal debt is decreasing along with savings. Much of this savings is not in a bank. Big miscalculation on the part of Democrats to not recognize how the public feels about debt right now.

 

[DiamondDave]

[Income disparity is NOT a rational basis. It is based completely on envy and the belief that someone that has more deserves to be treated less equally.

George W. Bush reduced taxes on his "base," which consists of the wealthiest Americans -- billionaires and multi-millionaires. The cost of that reduction was approximately $1.3 trillion. The current debt crisis could be effectively relieved by allowing those tax cuts to expire and doing so would not impose a significantly negative effect on those excessively wealthy individuals. Instead, that privileged category has lobbied the Republican Congress to resist any such tax increase but instead to seek reductions in the Social Security allotments and to curtail the benefits of Medicare and Medicaid, actions which would impose serious hardship on millions of seniors and impoverished persons. And you believe envy is the reason for the Progressive position in this conflict?

There are more appropriate words than envy to define the emotional response to this situation.

You seriously think the tax cuts to the 'rich' under Bush cost 1.3 trillion?????? Do you know how much income you would need at the very small % that was cut that will give you 1.3 trillion??

I seriously think you are a moron

 

[DiamondDave]

Personally, I think you are just projecting your own issue on me.

Does the person who earns 50k in taxable income pay the same rate on dollars 20k-25k earned as the persona who earns 27 million? Yes or no?

If that 50k person were to begin making 27 million would they pay at a different rate than the guy already making that much and vice versa? Yes or no?

Again.. you are acting as if dollars 1-20000 never existed... so you are changing the playing field.. I simply insist that they are earned just as all the other dollars are...

You are simply disguising your method for a subjective progressive system

No surprise that you avoided my questions.

But again, I'm not acting like dollars 1-20000 never existed. Where do you even come up with this nonsense? I've clearly stated that as long as 1-20000 are taxed at the same rate, for everyone, whether it's a flat rate in a flat tax system or in a tax bracket (even if that bracket is zero) in a progressive tax system then you cannot cry "unfair" or "unequal."

Yes you are... you magically do not want them not to count... in a sneaky pete way of trying to disguise your progressive rates... not gonna fly with me... you may trick a moron, but someone who analyzes for a living like I do... You have been shown EXACTLY how it makes it a progressive system with higher incomes paying a higher % of their income...

You sir, are a ******* dishonest moron.. and your questions are irrelevant because you purposely changed the paying field

A progressive system, is INHERENTLY unequal... and it is you and your ******* ilk that cry the 'fairness' aspect with your subjective bullshit

 

[Article 15]

Again.. you are acting as if dollars 1-20000 never existed... so you are changing the playing field.. I simply insist that they are earned just as all the other dollars are...

You are simply disguising your method for a subjective progressive system

No surprise that you avoided my questions.

But again, I'm not acting like dollars 1-20000 never existed. Where do you even come up with this nonsense? I've clearly stated that as long as 1-20000 are taxed at the same rate, for everyone, whether it's a flat rate in a flat tax system or in a tax bracket (even if that bracket is zero) in a progressive tax system then you cannot cry "unfair" or "unequal."

Yes you are... you magically do not want them not to count... in a sneaky pete way of trying to disguise your progressive rates... not gonna fly with me... you may trick a moron, but someone who analyzes for a living like I do... You have been shown EXACTLY how it makes it a progressive system with higher incomes paying a higher % of their income...

You sir, are a ******* dishonest moron.. and your questions are irrelevant because you purposely changed the paying field

A progressive system, is INHERENTLY unequal... and it is you and your ******* ilk that cry the 'fairness' aspect with your subjective bullshit

Anytime you wanna end your lil tantrum and stop stomping your feet.....

Does the person who earns 50k in taxable income pay the same rate on dollars 20k-25k earned as the persona who earns 27 million? Yes or no?

If that 50k person were to begin making 27 million would they pay at a different rate than the guy already making that much and vice versa? Yes or no?

 

[dblack]

A progressive system, is INHERENTLY unequal...

Income tax is inherently unequal. It requires that people who make more money pay more taxes. A progressive income tax rate makes it more unequal, depending on how progressive it is. But the 'progression' inherent in a flat-rate tax with a 20k exemption is minimal compared to a system with progressive rates. It's still not clear to me why there would be opposition to such a change. You can agree it would be better, right?

 

[DiamondDave]

No surprise that you avoided my questions.

But again, I'm not acting like dollars 1-20000 never existed. Where do you even come up with this nonsense? I've clearly stated that as long as 1-20000 are taxed at the same rate, for everyone, whether it's a flat rate in a flat tax system or in a tax bracket (even if that bracket is zero) in a progressive tax system then you cannot cry "unfair" or "unequal."

Yes you are... you magically do not want them not to count... in a sneaky pete way of trying to disguise your progressive rates... not gonna fly with me... you may trick a moron, but someone who analyzes for a living like I do... You have been shown EXACTLY how it makes it a progressive system with higher incomes paying a higher % of their income...

You sir, are a ******* dishonest moron.. and your questions are irrelevant because you purposely changed the paying field

A progressive system, is INHERENTLY unequal... and it is you and your ******* ilk that cry the 'fairness' aspect with your subjective bullshit

Anytime you wanna end your lil tantrum and stop stomping your feet.....

Does the person who earns 50k in taxable income pay the same rate on dollars 20k-25k earned as the persona who earns 27 million? Yes or no?

If that 50k person were to begin making 27 million would they pay at a different rate than the guy already making that much and vice versa? Yes or no?

Is that 20K the same % of income for someone making 30K as 20K for the person making 500K?? No.... You are creating a false floor that INHERENTLY changes the total % paid by citizen based on income... hence a motherfucking progressive system... you know it.. .I know it..... at a 10% tax rate... that means the person making 19K pays a 0% rate, a person making 30K paying a 3.33% rate, a person making 100K paying an 8% rate, and a person making 2.5MIL at a 9.993% rate..... you see.. progressively unequal and based on income

You dishonest piece of shit

 

[DiamondDave]

A progressive system, is INHERENTLY unequal...

Income tax is inherently unequal. It requires that people who make more money pay more taxes. A progressive income tax rate makes it more unequal, depending on how progressive it is. But the 'progression' inherent in a flat-rate tax with a 20k exemption is minimal compared to a system with progressive rates. It's still not clear to me why there would be opposition to such a change. You can agree it would be better, right?

Not per dollar when based on a flat system..... just as sales tax does not treat someone unequal... every dollar spent is taxed the same way... it does not matter the person, the earnings, the amount spent in total.. .every dollar, same % taken, regardless of anything else... that is not inherently unequal

No... I do not agree it would be better... the only thing better is a less complex system.... but it is just as bad in terms of progressive rates based on income

 

[Care4all]

poor envy! amazing!

 

[auditor0007]

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow

Report after report has shown a growing majority, conservatively at 40%, of American workers pay no income tax, ZERO. Meanwhile the top 10% of American income earners fund 70% of total federal income taxes.

Where is the shared sacrifice?

If those who are paying zero income tax were to contribute 'their fair share' perhaps it would solve this current financial situation--for a few months at least. But it isn't politically expedient to go after people who don't pay taxes.

This is a result of tax credits, loopholes if you will, that allow median income earners to pay virtually nothing in income tax. Obama is all for inciting a mob against the evil rich who are currently funding this unsustainable spending spree that has intensified more under the short two years, though it seems much longer, of Obama's presidency than it has under any other administration.

Record monthly deficit spending was reached back in March and has continued at $200 billion a month. The US Federal Government spends $200 billion more a month than it takes in revenue, and Obama wants everyone to believe the problem is the rich aren't paying their fair share .

But we're told that cutting deficit spending will damage the economy. That is the justification for this absurd situation: fixing it will hurt the economy; as if continuing in this manner is going to have anything but an apocalyptic outcome .

Americans have become desensitized to the constant cries of crisis that Obama has used to achieve the entirety of his legislative agenda, it isn't working anymore.

The top ten percent pay approximately 30% of all federal taxes. The top ten percent takes in approximately 45% of all income. You do the math. It's so easy to play games with numbers when you only use the pieces of the game that you want. What I would like to know is how in the hell has the top ten percent bamboozled so many into believing they pay more than their share when in fact they are paying less than their fair share. We ought to double tax the bastards for lying to us for all this time. Unless you are in the top ten percent of income earners, you're getting fucked.

 

[Article 15]

Yes you are... you magically do not want them not to count... in a sneaky pete way of trying to disguise your progressive rates... not gonna fly with me... you may trick a moron, but someone who analyzes for a living like I do... You have been shown EXACTLY how it makes it a progressive system with higher incomes paying a higher % of their income...

You sir, are a ******* dishonest moron.. and your questions are irrelevant because you purposely changed the paying field

A progressive system, is INHERENTLY unequal... and it is you and your ******* ilk that cry the 'fairness' aspect with your subjective bullshit

Anytime you wanna end your lil tantrum and stop stomping your feet.....

Does the person who earns 50k in taxable income pay the same rate on dollars 20k-25k earned as the persona who earns 27 million? Yes or no?

If that 50k person were to begin making 27 million would they pay at a different rate than the guy already making that much and vice versa? Yes or no?

Is that 20K the same % of income as 20K for the person making 500K?? No.... You are creating a false floor that INHERENTLY changes the total % paid by citizen based on income... hence a motherfucking progressive system... you know it.. .I know it..... at a 10% tax rate... that means the person making 19K pays a 0% rate, a person making 30K paying a 3.33% rate, a person making 100K paying an 8% rate, and a person making 2.5MIL at a 9.993% rate..... you see.. progressively unequal and based on income

You dishonest piece of shit

Such animosity....

That 20k is obviously going to be a different percentage for anyone not making the exact same amount. My answer to you is "so what" everyone pays that same zero rate on those dollars earned and the same rate on each dollar after that. The same goes for a progressive system with multiple brackets or a flat tax system where there are no brackets and just one rate. As long as every dollar for dollar is taxed the same for everyone it's fair. This is obviously a blind spot of yours.

Now cry some moar.

 

[Article 15]

poor envy! amazing!

I was telling Ravi.....eff this, I'm leaving the firm to go back and work as cook. Apparently, I was living the high life back then.

 

[Jarhead]

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow

Report after report has shown a growing majority, conservatively at 40%, of American workers pay no income tax, ZERO. Meanwhile the top 10% of American income earners fund 70% of total federal income taxes.

Where is the shared sacrifice?

If those who are paying zero income tax were to contribute 'their fair share' perhaps it would solve this current financial situation--for a few months at least. But it isn't politically expedient to go after people who don't pay taxes.

This is a result of tax credits, loopholes if you will, that allow median income earners to pay virtually nothing in income tax. Obama is all for inciting a mob against the evil rich who are currently funding this unsustainable spending spree that has intensified more under the short two years, though it seems much longer, of Obama's presidency than it has under any other administration.

Record monthly deficit spending was reached back in March and has continued at $200 billion a month. The US Federal Government spends $200 billion more a month than it takes in revenue, and Obama wants everyone to believe the problem is the rich aren't paying their fair share .

But we're told that cutting deficit spending will damage the economy. That is the justification for this absurd situation: fixing it will hurt the economy; as if continuing in this manner is going to have anything but an apocalyptic outcome .

Americans have become desensitized to the constant cries of crisis that Obama has used to achieve the entirety of his legislative agenda, it isn't working anymore.

The top ten percent pay approximately 30% of all federal taxes. The top ten percent takes in approximately 45% of all income. You do the math. It's so easy to play games with numbers when you only use the pieces of the game that you want. What I would like to know is how in the hell has the top ten percent bamboozled so many into believing they pay more than their share when in fact they are paying less than their fair share. We ought to double tax the bastards for lying to us for all this time. Unless you are in the top ten percent of income earners, you're getting fucked.

You are doing exactly what you criticized. You are playing with only the numbers you want to play with.

Lets look at it the right way.

The top ten percent pay 30% of all income taxes

However, the top 10% use AT MOST 10% of all government services offered.

They are 10% of the road users (give or take)
The miltary services the country and as 10% of the country, they are getting their 10% of protection
They are 10% of the electorrate

And in reality, they actually get much less than 10% of government services.
Likely all or most do NOT use medicaid.
Certainly ALL 10% do not get welfare, food stamps, etc.

To say that they have 45% of the money is irrelevant.

When you compare what people put into something you must look at what they get out of it.....not what other things they have or are involved with.

but this does not mean that I do not understand and respect the overall point you are trying to make.

But I disagree that there are those that are lying....you analyzed it wrong in my opinion. No lies here at all.

 

[Ravi]

Anytime you wanna end your lil tantrum and stop stomping your feet.....

Does the person who earns 50k in taxable income pay the same rate on dollars 20k-25k earned as the persona who earns 27 million? Yes or no?

If that 50k person were to begin making 27 million would they pay at a different rate than the guy already making that much and vice versa? Yes or no?

Is that 20K the same % of income as 20K for the person making 500K?? No.... You are creating a false floor that INHERENTLY changes the total % paid by citizen based on income... hence a motherfucking progressive system... you know it.. .I know it..... at a 10% tax rate... that means the person making 19K pays a 0% rate, a person making 30K paying a 3.33% rate, a person making 100K paying an 8% rate, and a person making 2.5MIL at a 9.993% rate..... you see.. progressively unequal and based on income

You dishonest piece of shit

Such animosity....

That 20k is obviously going to be a different percentage for anyone not making the exact same amount. My answer to you is "so what" everyone pays that same zero rate on those dollars earned and the same rate on each dollar after that. The same goes for a progressive system with multiple brackets or a flat tax system where there are no brackets and just one rate. As long as every dollar for dollar is taxed the same for everyone it's fair. This is obviously a blind spot of yours.

Now cry some moar.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the higher income earner benefit from the progressive system?

For instance, $100,000 in income at a 10% flat tax would mean $10,000 in taxes, while with the $20,000 deduction it would mean only $8,000 in taxes.

 

[Kuros]

Nobody is talking about redistribution of wealth. You need taxation + spending for that. Right now we are justifying taxation ONLY. If you want to get into the massive wealth transfers from the middle class to the wealthy via defense spending and bloat I'll be happy to get into that.

Defense spending goes mostly to the middle class - well paid engineers and computer programs who work for defense contractors, so your lament is misdirected and idiotic. Libs simply hate the military and blame it for all the ills of of the world.

Obama already did the spending. That's what his "stimulus" bill was all about. That has now been incorporated into the baseline for all federal budgets. Spending first, and then using the resulting deficit to justify huge tax increases on the wealthy.

So are you for or against Stimulus? Because you're for defense spending, because it goes to engineers and computer programmers. So which is it?

I am talking about equal protection under the law. I even provided a link explaining the doctrine so you folks could follow what I was saying. Income taxation is not only an enumerated power under the Federal Constitution, but distinctions outside of race, alienage, nationality, or gender fall under rational basis review. THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE DOES NOT HELP YOUR ARGUMENT. You can lead a horse to water . . .

There is no such thing as "rational basis review" in the Constitution.

There is no such thing as "judicial review" in the Constitution, either. What is your point?

 

[Article 15]

Is that 20K the same % of income as 20K for the person making 500K?? No.... You are creating a false floor that INHERENTLY changes the total % paid by citizen based on income... hence a motherfucking progressive system... you know it.. .I know it..... at a 10% tax rate... that means the person making 19K pays a 0% rate, a person making 30K paying a 3.33% rate, a person making 100K paying an 8% rate, and a person making 2.5MIL at a 9.993% rate..... you see.. progressively unequal and based on income

You dishonest piece of shit

Such animosity....

That 20k is obviously going to be a different percentage for anyone not making the exact same amount. My answer to you is "so what" everyone pays that same zero rate on those dollars earned and the same rate on each dollar after that. The same goes for a progressive system with multiple brackets or a flat tax system where there are no brackets and just one rate. As long as every dollar for dollar is taxed the same for everyone it's fair. This is obviously a blind spot of yours.

Now cry some moar.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the higher income earner benefit from the progressive system?

For instance, $100,000 in income at a 10% flat tax would mean $10,000 in taxes, while with the $20,000 deduction it would mean only $8,000 in taxes.

Yup...

It makes me question the grasp of a progressive tax system some people have.

 

[Kuros]

The F-35: A Weapon That Costs More Than Australia

So, how many F-35s do we need?

100?

500?

Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion.

Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion.

In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion).

The F-35 is the most expensive defense program in history, and reveals massive cost overruns, a lack of clear strategic thought, and a culture in Washington that encourages incredible waste.

A $1 trillion defense Stimulus project. Anybody who opposes Obama's Stimulus (as I do and did) but backs the F-35 project in full (we don't need more than 500) is a complete and utter hypocrite.

 

[xsited1]

Is that 20K the same % of income as 20K for the person making 500K?? No.... You are creating a false floor that INHERENTLY changes the total % paid by citizen based on income... hence a motherfucking progressive system... you know it.. .I know it..... at a 10% tax rate... that means the person making 19K pays a 0% rate, a person making 30K paying a 3.33% rate, a person making 100K paying an 8% rate, and a person making 2.5MIL at a 9.993% rate..... you see.. progressively unequal and based on income

You dishonest piece of shit

Such animosity....

That 20k is obviously going to be a different percentage for anyone not making the exact same amount. My answer to you is "so what" everyone pays that same zero rate on those dollars earned and the same rate on each dollar after that. The same goes for a progressive system with multiple brackets or a flat tax system where there are no brackets and just one rate. As long as every dollar for dollar is taxed the same for everyone it's fair. This is obviously a blind spot of yours.

Now cry some moar.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the higher income earner benefit from the progressive system?

For instance, $100,000 in income at a 10% flat tax would mean $10,000 in taxes, while with the $20,000 deduction it would mean only $8,000 in taxes.

Sometimes, but not always. The concept of 'fair' simply does not exist in our current tax system.

 

[Ravi]

Such animosity....

That 20k is obviously going to be a different percentage for anyone not making the exact same amount. My answer to you is "so what" everyone pays that same zero rate on those dollars earned and the same rate on each dollar after that. The same goes for a progressive system with multiple brackets or a flat tax system where there are no brackets and just one rate. As long as every dollar for dollar is taxed the same for everyone it's fair. This is obviously a blind spot of yours.

Now cry some moar.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the higher income earner benefit from the progressive system?

For instance, $100,000 in income at a 10% flat tax would mean $10,000 in taxes, while with the $20,000 deduction it would mean only $8,000 in taxes.

Yup...

It makes me question the grasp of a progressive tax system some people have.

Either that or DD's extreme hatred of the poor makes him willing to pay more in taxes just to stick it to them.

Pretty funny stuff.

 

[Jarhead]

The F-35: A Weapon That Costs More Than Australia

So, how many F-35s do we need?

100?

500?

Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion.

Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion.

In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion).

The F-35 is the most expensive defense program in history, and reveals massive cost overruns, a lack of clear strategic thought, and a culture in Washington that encourages incredible waste.

A $1 trillion defense Stimulus project. Anybody who opposes Obama's Stimulus (as I do and did) but backs the F-35 project in full (we don't need more than 500) is a complete and utter hypocrite.

For the life of me, I can not rationalize more than 500.
Are you sure about that 2,400 number? It doesnt make sense. Heck...during WW2 we didnt need that many mustangs, jugs, helcats and wildcats

 

[dblack]

No... I do not agree it would be better... the only thing better is a less complex system.... but it is just as bad in terms of progressive rates based on income

Then I can only suggest that you're in denial. I'm not gonna do the math for you, but the progressive rates we currently have create much greater inequity in taxation than a flat rate - even with a base exemption. It's easy enough to work out with a calculator.